Indeed, there is a demand on "fair licensing", see for example the recent debates on the CC community mailing list. But I am not aware of any established fair licensing scheme, which excludes "problematic" uses.
I am involved in a consultation for the EUPL 1.2 license. The European Public License is compatible to GPL (and soon to CC-by-sa) and also allows additional agreements. However:
The same is true e.g. for GPL licenses.The exclusion of specific uses (i.e. military, hedge funds, unfair trade), although it looks morally well-founded, cannot find place in the licence because in contradiction with the Open Source Definition principle #6 stating: “No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.“
I think we have two options:
1. Establish an "ethical" license. I am willing to work on that, maybe the EUPL is agood starting point. However, we will get as feedback from the community: do not proliferate licensing and no, this won't be open source anymore.
2. Open up Cyclos to AGPL. Affero means, that all service providers always have to publish all code of their customized extensions, maybe even all scripts and parameters. That would very likely prevent those with "unethical" trading mechanisms, those who want to play pyramide or similar games to use Cyclos as a platform.
But maybe we start a list of uses of Cyclos, which should be prevented by a new licensing scheme.